emvan Reviews

Jesus Shows You the Way to the Highway (2019)

Great But (For Some of Us) Unwatchable

[4/10 · 14 November 2021]

I can see why some people love this. But there's really no excuse for casting non-actors in significant roles who are below average -- not below average for actors, mind you, but below average for human beings. I mean, the average person can fake pretend to be upset or sad in order to fake out a friend ... but the actors tasked with communicating the danger of the situation in the opening scenes are just *reading their lines.* So you not only have to love barely coherent gonzo -- and I'm very much a fan of that -- but you also have to enjoy bad, *flat* acting, presumably for its camp value. (Note that bad, *over-the-top acting* can actually work, because the characters are at least expressing their emotions.)

There's even less excuse for spending 400,000 euros but not bothering to get all the ADR (studio-dubbed speech) in synch. That, and the flat acting, just screams "amateur" to my brain. I lasted 25 minutes.

Chimera Strain (2018)

Here's What's Good and What's Bad

[4/10 · 22 February 2021]

It's a modest visually treat, and it contains a number of effective and surprising set-pieces. The problem is, they're surprising because no character but the lead has any coherent motivation. Amazingly, they are somehow also remarkably one-dimensional; a great deal seems to happen Because Movie. The interesting premise is given short shrift both scientifically and especially thematically, leaving the first half of the film to be consumed by what should have been a subsidiary plot point. The score distractingly says "creepy" when the visuals say "mysterious," and key elements of the plot puzzle are poorly communicated (it's really not a good idea to signal a character's nature by echoing their speech so severely that it's hard to understand). It was shot in a single abandoned location, a very good thing considering the enormous quantity of scenery chewed. For all its flaws, though, its evident ambition and technical skill make it marginally watchable for sci-fi fans. Horror buffs may fare a bit better.

Chik-Chirik (2018)

Robbed of an Oscar Nomination

[9/10 · 22 February 2019]

It's increasingly clear that the folks who nominate the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film endorse the traditional goals of animation -- humor and pathos -- and are less interested in the artistic, original, and thought-provoking. "Tweet Tweet" is all of these things, and though the Academy chose it as Highly Commended, I thought it was stronger that all but one of the nominees (Weekend). It's clear that walking the tightrope is a metaphor for living your life. There may or may not be references to Russian history, based on the transformations of the rope. It's not clear from a first viewing what the small bird symbolizes. But I suspect that the filmmakers knew exactly what they were doing and that this will reward multiple repeat viewings -- something you cannot say about Bao (the big favorite as I type) or most other acclaimed animated shorts.

Let the Corpses Tan (2017)

Style So Dazzling You May Have No Idea What's Happenng

[6/10 · 24 September 2018]

I believe that people will enjoy this film in direct proportion to two things: your appreciation for bravura cinematic style, and your hard-wired facial recognition talents. The two collide immediately, as we are introduced to some of the characters (I think) via extreme closeups of eyes and mouths. The filmmakers avoid all of the usual techniques for establishing character identity and relationships, especially among members of the gang. I can't honestly say that I know what happened in the film's last third: who betrayed whom, who was firing what weapons, and so on.

In the meantime, though, I saw things, cool things, good things, that I'd never seen before on a movie screen. The stylistic flourishes kept me just engaged enough to not walk out. In the end I'm glad I saw it and even more glad that I didn't pay for a ticket (I have a membership at the local arthouse cinema). Mostly I'm frustrated, because if the filmmakers would put storytelling first and then maximize style as much as possible (like, you know, every other filmmaker on the planet) rather than vice versa, this could have been a kinky classic.

The Bad Batch (2016)

Extraordinary Film That Hugely Defies Initial Viewer Expectations

[9/10 · 16 June 2017]

Most films tell you what they're about by their style and their trappings, and what happens in the opening scenes. THE BAD BATCH opens in a recognizably post-apocalyptic sort of setting (although it actually isn't -- more on that in a moment) and immediately features brutal, grisly violence. But the story that unfolds is completely unlike what you'd expect given that beginning.

To begin with, it's not shot like an action / adventure movie. The pace is measured, even contemplative, and the camera lingers on the actors' faces. In other words, it's shot like a family drama ... and in a way it is. I was moved nearly to tears by the movie's climax; to say that was the last thing I expected after the opening scenes would be a massive understatement.

It is, above all, tremendously thought-provoking. (And you now can see that in two or three important ways it's the polar opposite of MAD MAX: FURY ROAD, a very clear influence and of course brilliant in its own completely different way.) First and foremost, it's an examination of the nature of morality and moral choices. There's a scene where you will ask yourself whether the act you have just seen was justified, indefensible, or some indescribable mixture of the two, even as you watch Suki Waterhouse (in a tremendous breakout performance) ask herself the same question -- what have I just done, and was it good or bad? The moral situation at the movie's end unconsciously evokes Ursula K. Le Guin's classic short story "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" (after a special screening in Boston, writer / director Ana Lily Amirpour confirmed she was unfamiliar with it).

It's also a potent and cutting commentary on the problem of income inequality. The movie is actually set in the near future, where "bad batch" characters are exiled to a lawless fenced enclave in the former Texas desert, and left to fend for themselves. Unlike an actual post-apocalyptic setting, there's no inherited privileged class, and there's a lot less wealth for the powerful to hoard. It's never spoken of, but the characters seem always aware that whatever luxury they can achieve pales beside that which they left behind. It changes their psychology completely. So although the trappings are completely familiar, the situation is in fact utterly original. That originality underlies the moral situation and the depth of characterization.

The movie defies another convention: it never bothers to explain what seem (on surface) to be unlikely elements of the portrayed world. However, Amirpour says she did extensive world-building and even devised complete back stories for every character. Her strategy is to keep viewers as uninformed as the characters themselves. That may bother some, but I think it adds immensely to the movie's weight and power.

The film features a fine turn by Keanu Reeves as the leader of a settlement called (perhaps without irony) Comfort, and a wordless and barely recognizable Jim Carrey in a few key scenes, at least one of which is darkly hilarious. Giavanni Ribisi and Diego Luna show up in small roles, so you know that people wanted to do this movie. Jason Momoa (Aquaman) is excellent in a lead role, but it's Waterhouse that ultimately makes it all work.

It's shot almost entirely outdoors, and it's so impressive to look at that I plan to see it a second time on an even bigger screen. It borrows many familiar trappings but is almost startling in its refusal to use them in stereotypical ways, and it has haunted my brain since the moment the lights went up. In short, it's an exemplary addition to the small but growing group of art-house science fiction films. It more than fulfills the promise of Amirpour's art-house horror debut, A GIRL WALKS HOME ALONE AT NIGHT, and marks her as a major figure to watch in genre cinema.

Your Name. (2016)

Donnie Darko w/Boatloads of Sweetness Instead of Angst

[10/10 · 12 April 2017]

Oh, and gorgeously animated.

I think that's a fair way to sum up this movie. It starts out as a fantasy and, as it reveals more puzzle pieces, you realize it's more science fiction. There are tightly plotted reasons for everything that's going on, all of which are revealed in good time.

Like like all good puzzle movies, there's a thrill every time something is revealed that ties things together. It's complex enough that you want to see it again immediately, but no so complex that you have any doubt as to what basically happened.

Like Donnie Darko, while it's busy scrambling your head and keeping you guessing, it is somehow managing to be deep, both emotionally and thematically (the latter drawing on Japanese culture and religion). Unlike Donnie Darko, it's never dark and disturbing in a creepy way, although there is plenty of danger and peril. Instead, it radiates sweetness and love, without ever becoming saccharine.

Donnie Darko is one of my two or three favorite films of all time, so this is high praise. Of all the films I've seen since, nothing has come closer to matching its combination of thrilling revelations, emotional resonance, and thematic depth than Your Name.

Timecode (2016)

Truly Original, and Best of the Oscar Nominees

[9/10 · 1 March 2017]

You have to be a true cinephile to stay out until 11:30 PM on a weekday to see a program of not just short films but short foreign-language films ... after one of them had already been chosen as the Oscar winner (removing any benefit of winning your Oscar prediction pool!).

I'm proud to say there were about 30 of us at my local art-house cinema tonight. All five of the nominated films were very good, but we broke into applause after just one -- TIMECODE.

If you see a lot of movies (Friday I'll see my 100th film released in 2016), you place a high value on seeing a story you had never seen before or even imagined. Other reviewers acknowledge how delightful the film is, but they seem to be indifferent to the fact that the very premise is delightful.

And finally, unlike some of the other contenders, there isn't an ounce of predictability, sentimentality, or credulity-straining plotting. It starts out fresh and surprising, and remains so at every turn.

Once Upon a Line (2016)

Robbed of Not Just an Oscar Nom, But the Win

[9/10 · 22 February 2017]

This was on the 10-film Oscar shortlist and is one of three "Highly Commended" films that round out this year's theatrical program. In terms of innovative use of the medium, it's in a league of its own, and I thought it edged Disney's delightful PIPER, which doesn't push the envelope of animation an iota, as the best of the eight. I look for animated films to show us *something we've never seen before*, and ONCE UPON A LINE does that in a way that is transfixing and beautifully artful from start to end -- and yet is fundamentally simple. I suspect it didn't get the nomination because voters knew it was a student film. But that just makes it all the more remarkable.

Michael Moore in TrumpLand (2016)

Funny, Insightful Defense of Hilary Clinton

[8/10 · 4 November 2016]

It's interesting to read the negative reviews by Trump voters. Some are as tenuous in their relation to reality as Trump himself. The second greatest strength of this film is that it features one of the best and certainly the most heartfelt and sympathetic explanation of Trump's appeal I've ever heard (one that Moore wrote out the night previously and reads while seated). Moore (like all the Bernie and Elizabeth Sanders supporters) feels that the American worker class has been abused by the elites and deserve their righteous anger. But Moore argues that a vote should never be used as an anger management tool.

The second very telling feature of the film is that Moore takes it as a given that Trump, if elected, would in fact do absolutely nothing to help the working class. Now, this is something that is obviously true to any rational person who believes in consensus reality (e.g., who accepts the numerous non-partisan analyses of his tax plan, or who is aware of his actual track record in business). So it's quite clear that the film is targeted at all the anti-Trump potential voters who are thinking of voting Libertarian or Green, or staying home.

The film is remarkably insightful in its exploration of basic misogyny as the fundamental source of 25 years of anti-Hilary hatred. And it makes an interesting case that Hilary as President may be far more to the left than Candidate Hilary (which is to say, that she'll actually implement the Democratic platform, which is pure Sanders / Warren). There's a great segment on Hilary's attempt as First Lady to introduce universal health care, and a reasonable argument that her subsequent move to the center was a reaction to the hatred this earned her from the big-business elites that otherwise provided critical support to the Clintons. Did Hilary cozy up to them so that she could subsequently attack them from the inside? It's an interesting idea. We shall see.

As far as entertainment value, I saw it in a sold-out venue full of 450 flaming liberals, and the laughter at times threatened to drown out the soundtrack (which actually happened during a subsequent Facetime interview with Moore from the laundry room of his NYC apartment building). Misogynists and Trump supporters are unlikely to laugh, but the film's not for them. It's for everyone who would never vote for Trump, but is uncommitted to vote for Hilary instead. And every one of them needs to see this movie.

Fat (2013)

Dark But Improbably Entertaining Indie Gem

[8/10 · 2 December 2015]

There have been very few films that have treated food addiction seriously, portraying with realism and sensitivity the struggles of the dangerously obese. FAT will therefore get attention simply for its subject matter. But what makes the film shine is its unusual combination of very dark drama and consistent character-driven humor. Imagine if REQUIEM FOR A DREAM were about food rather than drugs ... and was sometimes very funny.

The focus here is squarely on fat Ken (veteran TV actor Mel Rodriguez, excellent), but what makes the story work is his relationship with lifelong best friend Terry (improv comedy vet Jason Dugre). We witness Ken's downward spiral of self-sabotage, but he remains intensely sympathetic because we see him just often enough through Terry's eyes. There's no need to give us back story showing Ken when he was more pleasant to be around, because the person Ken used to be is implied by Terry's devotion to him. At the same time, the sometimes disturbing drama is made tolerable by their darkly comic give-and-take about Ken's travails. It's sharp screen writing, right down to an absolutely perfect ending.

The rest of the cast are largely first-timers; there are a couple of weak performances in small roles (the only thing that betrays the film's shoestring-budget origins), but Ashley Lauren is very solid and believable as a romantic interest and Kevin Patey a mild hoot as a filthy-minded (i.e., male) co-worker.

After debuting at TIFF two years ago, the movie has been re-cut and picked up for premieres in Boston (where I saw it as a member of the local art-house cinema that also had the Boston premieres of Black Mass and Spotlight) and LA, before going to VOD. I think it has a substantial chance to become a VOD hit for two simple reasons: there's never been a movie like this, and it's very, very good.

Adult Beginners (2014)

Decently Entertaining and Incredibly Unmemorable

[7/10 · 29 October 2015]

This film's surface is good enough to make it entirely watchable and even enjoyable, which is why it just sneaks into a 7 for me, rather than getting a 6. And I recall thinking that there was one smart move by the filmmakers, where they made a choice that wasn't the obvious one.

However, not only can I not remember what that was (six months after seeing the film), I can barely remember the story. There are some movies that start evaporating from your brain the moment the credits start to roll, and this movie is pretty much the archetype. Nevertheless, if you're easy to please, you will be entertained.

The Cut (2014)

Terrific Performances, Slice of Life

[8/10 · 26 January 2015]

The story of this French-Canadian short film (part of the 2014 Sundance Shorts program) could not be simpler: a young girl is spending time with her Dad and positively bubbling over the prospect of enjoying a special evening with him, when an alternative unexpectedly presents itself. What was a simple situation a moment ago is now a complex one, and the mood changes instantly. The young actress playing Fanny, Milya Corbeil-Gaubreau, makes her debut here and is a gifted natural.

The directorial style might strike some viewers as slow, but with actors this good, you want to linger. The director, Genevieve Dulude-Decelles, is a talent to watch.

Dimensions (I) (2011)

Missed Opportunity for Greatness

[6/10 · 11 January 2015]

MILD SPOILERS MARKED BELOW.

This movie's strengths are many. The premise, although ultimately science fantasy, is immediately engaging: what if someone had devised the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics (all possible realities, deriving from every possible choice, exist in parallel worlds) back in the 1920's, and then gone on from there to invent a time machine? The would-be time traveler who wants to undo an event in their own past is a story we've seen before, but the essentials of this version are quite well done.

The film is beautifully designed and shot (arthouse fans will not find it too slow) and very well acted. The screenplay is full of quality moments.

So why is this only a 6? Well, to begin with, the screenplay is also full of clichés. But it has a much bigger problem than that: the main character's behavior and motivation, which are the sole engine of the plot, are somewhat unconvincing for an ordinary person, and entirely unconvincing for a scientist.

VERY BROAD SPOILERS FOLLOW

If you advise someone not to do something rash or dangerous or wisely decline to do it yourself), and they do it anyway, and it indeed ends badly ... most people will feel remorse -- remorse that they did not do a better job of explaining their concerns. What rarely happens is that they *entirely blame themselves*, to the point of obsession. It stretches all credulity (at least for me) that a brilliant scientist (hence, by nature, an unusually rational thinker) would do so. You don't really want your genius character being told by friends that "it wasn't your fault" when that is in fact INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS.

This movie does this twice; one is the engine of the plot, and the other creates a plot pivot.

Note that this might have worked if our hero had been portrayed as a general emotional wreck who just happened to be a physics whiz. But he's not: he goes about pursuing his obsession in a cool, rational way that is entirely believable for a brilliant scientist. It's only the source of that obsession that is out of character, fatally so.

The pity is, it's easy to imagine how the plot could have been kept intact by giving our hero more complex, more interesting, and much more believable motivations.

Oh, and the movie also ends up incorporating a classic time-travel paradox without seeming to address it at all. And there's a huge loose end in the plot that, I think, cries out for more closure.

END SPOILERS

The first thing I did after watching this film is check to see who the producers were. My suspicions were correct: the screenwriter, and the director. IOW, no one with an objective take on the film. If I had a time machine, I'd go back a few years and give them a whole set of notes on the screenplay. That's what a good producer does. The creative team here is clearly quite talented; if they find someone who really knows film (and especially knows the genre they're working in) to produce their next effort, it will be one to watch for.

Allegro (I) (2005)

Fine Concept, Unsatisfying Execution

[6/10 · 5 January 2015]

There's a fine and potentially powerful sci-fi-as-metaphor idea at the heart of this film: the notion that the painful memories you wish to repress might be actually taken from you and placed somewhere ("The Zone," a la Tarkovsky's Stalker).

The trouble is, the film is not told from the point of view of the protagonist. His emotional journey would have been powerful if the audience had been *asked to share it.* Why can't I remember more than ten years back? What happened ten years ago? What connection, if any, does my memory lapse have with the mysterious region in my former home city called "The Zone"? Who is the woman in this picture: might she be a lover I have somehow forgotten? Unfortunately, while all of these things are puzzling to our hero, the answers have already been spelled out for us, because the story has been told in a linear fashion, and is actually narrated by an omniscient voice who explains everything point-by-point, essentially before it has happened. This greatly reduces the movie's emotional impact: we are now a passive observer rather than an active participant.

It is, in other words, the anti-Memento. I've long been championing the artistic cause of puzzle movies like that one, and Donnie Darko, Eternal Sunshine, and Upstream Color ... because real life is a puzzle that lacks an omniscient narrator. I wish Boe had trusted his audience much more and dared to tell this from the proper POV: that, and better casting of the female lead, would have made this an 8/10. As it is, it is worth seeing more as an argument in favor of more challenging narrative structures.

Extracted (2012)

Smart as Hell and the Best Straight-to-DVD SF Film Ever

[9/10 · 25 November 2014]

Simply put, this is a whip-smart science fiction movie that is all about the nature and reliability of memory, and how it interacts with personality.

I initially thought that the 9 and 10 ratings in the reviews here were a little generous, but made sense when considering its budget and the notoriety of the actors and director. Then I watched it again four days later. It's a rare movie that not only stands up to that kind of scrutiny, but offers up overlooked details and becomes significantly more moving and emotional. This absolutely deserves a 9.2 without a handicap, and for some context, in my book District 9 is an 8.9, Attack the Block and The Skin I Live In get 8.7, and Limitless and Source Code get 8.5. All movies I loved, but none are exceptional in the way this is.

It has a very effective thriller structure, but you have to pay attention and be on top of what's going on (virtually every external reviewer pretty obviously didn't; there's no way the second act is slow or repetitive if you're following the story). Like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, it spends almost no money at all on the tech. Ignore the lack of whiz-bang and attend to the ideas.

What stuns me on the second viewing is the depth of the character story, and the quality of the performances from the mostly unknown cast. The visuals are stylish, and the editing and score are both very effective. This is absolutely a writer / director to watch, big-time.

Hector and the Search for Happiness (2014)

Very Worthwhile and a Bit Problematical

[7/10 · 19 September 2014]

This is one of those films that is sure to be divisive: what is good about is genuinely very good, and yet it surely has problems (which critics are typically over-reacting to).

It is in most ways a very satisfying entertainment, with a smart and witty script populated by a trio of terrific supporting roles (Stellan Skarsgard, Jean Reno, and Toni Collette; the other big-name cast members, like Christopher Plummer, do well with much thinner characters). I saw it with a large crowd at an art-house cinema (as part of the NYC Film Critics series) and there was much laughter and general appreciation.

You should know that the titular lessons on happiness are not intended to be revelatory; the point is that even a psychiatrist like Simon Pegg's lead character, who presumably possesses all the book knowledge about happiness, needs to *experience* those lessons firsthand. He writes each one in his notebook, and more often than not they elicit fine ironic laughter at the contrast between their obviousness and the complexity of the situation that led Pegg to discover it.

The problems: First, Pegg's Hector has been altered from the source material to give him more of a character arc, but in doing so, they've removed all rationale for Rosamund Pike being his girlfriend at the outset. You have to seriously suspend your disbelief that she would be so devoted to someone with merely the *potential* to be a satisfying and compatible mate (a potential which he will of course realize by the movie's end, very nicely).

Second -- and this is the one that has the handful of early reviewers up in arms -- the movie comes across as tone-deaf culturally. Africa, for instance, seems to be almost entirely populated by either really happy people who sing and dance wonderfully, or by armed thugs. (Reno's character is the exception.) Now, I think it's perfectly defensible to argue that Pegg's character is only learning his lessons from extreme experiences, and hence what we see of Africa is all that he would remember and hence all that would be worth putting into the movie. Nevertheless, it still will strike some as hewing to stereotypes.

Less defensible, perhaps, is Pike's character, which is pretty much a Perfect Girlfriend wish-fulfillment, and hence will strike many as at least a bit sexist ... and yet she's admittedly very appealing.

Finally, the tone does vary, from naturalistic to somewhat dreamy and stylized, but both styles are executed confidently. In fact, it's very nice to look at.

If any of the above are deal-breakers for you, avoid this. However, I think that most viewers will be able to roll with all of that-- they're the sort of problems that you think about after you've finished the film. And if that's the case, you will find yourself thoroughly entertained and even a little moved. 77/100.

Magic in the Moonlight (2014)

A Widely and Profoundly Misunderstood Gem

[8/10 · 20 August 2014]

Most viewers are taking this film as a conventional (and admittedly entirely predictable) romantic comedy which happens to be about a magician who debunks fake spirit mediums, and a beautiful young woman whom he believes is just that. But that's getting it *entirely backwards*. It is in fact a thought-provoking exploration of the extreme materialistic worldview -- the view that holds that modern science has eliminated the possibility of the existence of the soul, an afterlife, and God -- and an exploration of the psychological relationship between embracing that worldview, and being pessimistic and unhappy. As such, it is one of Allen's most personal and thought-provoking films in years.

And if that sounds "heavy," the miracle of the movie is its very lightness. Obviously, the themes enter in so effortlessly that many people are missing them entirely! You need to be interested in the tension between the materialist worldview and the conventional one that accommodates the spiritual and the mysterious, but if you are, you will be astonished at how delightful and entertaining an exploration of those deep themes can be.

The age discrepancy between Frith's and Stone's characters, which I am sure will bother many, is in fact completely necessary: he must be old enough to be set in his pessimistic ways, and she must be young and beautiful enough to challenge them at first sight.

Obviously there are happy atheists and there are miserable spiritual people, so the question that Allen is asking here is whether some unhappy atheists have embraced the soul- and God-denying position too vigorously, as a sort of defense mechanism to shield themselves from the fundamentally irrational possibility of falling in love. The way the movie knits together the materialist / spiritualist question, the possibility of love, and the metaphor of magic -- well, it's sheer magic itself.

This is far from Allen's funniest movie, and it's only a 7/10 as entertainment. But not only does it easily gain an extra point for its depth, it almost gains two. Admittedly, I am fascinated by the movie's themes, but I think that anyone who is interested in them may find themselves as charmed and, ultimately, as deeply moved as I was. 89/100.

Chef (2014)

Fabulous "Chef" Has Its Cubano and Eats it Too

[8/10 · 6 May 2014]

Pretty simply, Chef has all the strengths of mainstream Hollywood comedies and all the strengths of indie films, without the weaknesses of either. The plot has continual forward momentum without any art-house slack, but nothing that happens is a contrivance, and all the key performances are wonderfully naturalistic.

It's wall-to-wall laugh-out loud funny, it's wickedly smart about social media, and it has touching but entirely unschmaltzy father / son and ex-husband / ex-wife relationships to boot.

And, oh yeah, pure food porn. I never thought I'd see a scene featuring Scarlett Johannson and a bowl of pasta where I desperately wanted to eat the latter.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Peter Jackson Returns to Form!

[9/10 · 13 December 2013]

The second installment of Peter Jackson's Hobbit adaptation is an immense improvement on the first, which (especially in the Extended Edition) is an excellent film, but falls far short of the historic brilliance of his LOTR. The biggest challenge facing Jackson and his fellow screenwriters in the entire adaptation was turning Bard into a full character worthy of Tolkien, and they have done so spectacularly well. A less obvious challenge was the fleshing out of the Elven King Thranduil (Legolas' father), and that's superb, too. The invented character of Tauriel doesn't have nearly the depth of those two, but she serves her plot purpose very well and is a treat to watch.

Unlike the first movie, which simplified and dumbed down the back-story of the Dwarf and Goblin / Orc War for no good reason, the changes to the story here are nearly all well thought-through, and some are so smart that Tolkien himself might have applauded (e.g., what they've done with the moon rune inscription). There's a sequence from the back-story that has been moved into the time frame of this film that's just stunning. The relentless pursuit by Orcs that I thought marred the first film (too much, too soon) here feels organic. The result of all these smart decisions is a film that, much more than Part 1, feels like part of the same Middle Earth epic as the classic LOTR.

Needless to say, the film is a technical marvel (although I don't think the 3D adds much), featuring some of the best action sequences of any of the films, and -- are you surprised? -- Best. Dragon. Ever.

The Twilight Zone: And When the Sky Was Opened (1959) Season 1, Episode 11

A Great Twist on a Classic Theme

[9/10 · 16 August 2013]

Here we have a story you've seen countless times: someone has experienced something remarkable and unbelievable, and not even his best friend (let alone the bartender in a bar) buys it. "Am I crazy?" wonders the hero. "But no, I can't be; I *know what I saw.* You must believe me! Even if no one in the world remembers things the way I do!" That's the starting point, and then it goes in an entirely unexpected direction.

Some reviewers have stated that the brilliant "twist" is telegraphed very early. This isn't true at all. What they really mean is that the twist is revealed not in the final moments, but several scenes previously, and that the final scenes then play out with a dread that is all the more chilling because is it predictable, inevitable -- to both us and the characters.

Certainly one of the underrated gems of the series.

The Twilight Zone: I Shot an Arrow into the Air (1960) Season 1, Episode 15

Watchable, But the Characters are Stupider than the Viewers

[4/10 · 16 August 2013]

The premise here is that astronauts have crash-landed on an asteroid, one that happens to not only be in the same orbit as Earth (which they note explicitly), but which also happens to have an atmosphere identical to Earth's (which they mention in passing, without noting that this is physically impossible, as no asteroid has enough gravity to retain an atmosphere). Oh, and which also seems to have the same length day as Earth, meaning the asteroid is rotating at the same speed -- after first wondering whether the sun will in fact go down, they never mention this again.

No effort is made to portray the astronauts as being addle-brained as a result of crash trauma. So we have the classic flaw of the characters being in possession of the same facts as the audience, but not getting the "twist," which couldn't be more obvious. (This is true, alas, even if the episode takes place in an alternate reality where there *are* immense asteroids in the same orbit as Earth. The crew would know of those, and probably know their rotational speeds / day lengths, as well). If you work it backwards, there's absolutely no reason why the crew would have ever thought they *were* on an asteroid; there's no reason they would have ever given that answer after asking the obvious question "where are we?" It would have made as much sense to have them believe they'd crash-landed in Oz.

The human drama involves one astronaut who is immediately revealed to be a sociopath, concerned only for his own well-being at the expense of his crewmates. Again, it's hardly credible that someone like that would be among the crew of the first manned spacecraft. That drama would have been much more effective if he'd been initially portrayed as caring, and had devolved into selfishness from the stress of apparent imminent death. Had they been able to make that belief credible, that is.

A rare misfire from Serling, on every front that matters.

Before Midnight (2013)

Not the Most Lovable of the Trilogy, But, Yes, the Best Yet

[10/10 · 10 June 2013]

The giddy romantic tension that pervades every moment of Before Sunset -- the literally pivotal film of this brilliant ongoing series -- is never going to be topped. But that doesn't mean that Linklater, Delpy, and Hawke cannot produce a deeper, richer, film, one that offers an entirely different set of rewards. And they have done exactly that.

I would strongly urge fans of these movies to re-watch the first two installments, and then see this. They really do inform one another in rather remarkable ways.

TECHNICALLY A SPOILER, BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S COMING AFTER THE FIRST FEW MINUTES

Probably the most important thing that couples do is *fight*, and this movie includes the best, truest, and most honestly portrayed couples fight you will ever see. Each character alternates between insight and obliviousness, between playing fair and striking low blows, between adroitly defusing the tension and needlessly escalating it, and there's no good guy and no bad guy, just two achingly human, real people that we have grown to know so well and root so strongly for.

SPOILER FOR WHETHER ANOTHER INSTALLMENT IS PROMISED

Unlike the first two, the movie ends with major unresolved issues between Jesse and Celine (the issues underlying the fight). It's thrilling to consider that the filmmakers will soon be plotting out the next nine years of their lives, including the resolution of those issues, and planning how the next screenplay will reveal what happened in casual dialogue, as they face the next key point in their relationship. 2022 cannot come too soon!

Upstream Color (2013)

An Overwhelming Masterpiece (For Some)

[10/10 · 12 April 2013]

Make no mistake about it: Shane Carruth makes Christopher Nolan look like Jerry Bruckheimer. If you're not the type who relished figuring out what was going on in MEMENTO (and in its untold backstory), if you haven't spent countless pleasant hours debating INCEPTION, do yourself a favor and skip this movie. As you can tell from the other reviews here, this will just make you mad. If, OTOH, you're someone (like me) who felt let down by LOOPER because it didn't live up to its billing as mind-scrambling and was in fact too easy to get, then this may be just your thing.

Key take-home points:

-- For fans of this sort of storytelling, there's plenty of stuff that's reasonably easy to get, and hence the basic storyline is not hard to follow.

-- OTOH, there are bits that are clearly important and that just as clearly will take three or four viewings (and probably liberal use of pause and rewind) to get. That's Carruth's narrative aesthetic: rather than give you one big "OMG I think I understand this" experience, like in VERTIGO, or two, like the first and second times you see THE PRESTIGE, he wants those bombs of comprehension to explode in your skull gradually, over many viewings.

-- At all points in time I felt that every shot was important, every shot contained information. It never felt like art for art's sake. That of course is partly my trust of Carruth, but I also think I got that feeling because *it's true.* This isn't LOST, folks. This is all designed to eventually cohere completely, leaving holes only where Carruth intends, and leaving the viewer knowing quite a bit and knowing precisely what is unknowable.

-- It's exquisite. Carruth has a directorial and editing (and composing) style that I find transfixing (YMMV, of course). Unlike PRIMER, it's at times beautiful and emotionally resonant. My friend was reduced to tears. It has thematic weight already and I know it will acquire more as the story coheres with repeat viewings.

-- Speaking of which, even though I'll be watching the Blu-Ray on May 7 on a great home theater, my friend and I will see this again at the theater next weekend. That's how blown away we were.

Margaret (I) (2011)

A Masterpiece and an Empathy Test

[10/10 · 12 March 2013]

(This is a review of the extended cut.) This is a divisive movie; most think it's flawed at best and a minority think it's a masterpiece. One thing I've noticed reading reviews is that those who have the former opinion invariably describe Lisa Cohen (a phenomenal Anna Paquin) in negative terms: unlikable, unsympathetic, even "reprehensible." Whereas I spent much of the movie weeping tears of empathy for the grief she was in.

So the question is: if, when you were 17, a stranger had died bloodily in your arms and you believed you were partly responsible for her death, how well would *you* have handled it? Apparently, a lot of people can't make that leap, can't ask themselves that question. Folks, that is a trauma that could easily give you PTSD. Lisa's reaction is quite different: she starts to do things.

The ubiquitous description of this film by those who don't think it's a masterpiece is "unfocused" (if not downright "incoherent" or a "mess"). This is clearly an opinion offered by people who are not aware that *every waking moment of Lisa's life must be colored by the accident.* There's no lack of focus at all when you see every scene through that lens.

Make no mistake: Lisa doesn't handle things well or admirably. She's 17 and a bit spoiled and in general wholly unprepared to shoulder such a burden. But she wants to do the right thing and at times is painfully self-aware that her best efforts are hurting others. In other words, the more she tries to make things better, the worse she makes it. That makes her plight all the more tragic.

This is one of the most powerful narratives in the world, one that can blow your head clean off. You've got to ask yourself one question: how much empathy do I have? Well, how much?

Louder Than a Bomb (2010)

One of 2011's Most Underrated Docs

[7/10 · 11 March 2013]

We're in the golden age of documentaries -- in 2011 alone, we had (in my rough order of preference) Pina, Bill Cunningham New York, If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, We Were Here, The Arbor, Project Nim, The Interrupters, Into the Abyss, Senna, Buck, and The Last Lions all released to some combination of critical and popular acclaim (and Cave of Forgotten Dreams, which I missed in 3D).

But not every great doc gets the attention it deserves. I saw a trailer for this at my local art-house cinema (part of the Landmark chain), so I'm flabbergasted that it only grossed 40K, has so few votes here, and has been rented less than 2000 times at Netflix. (In comparison, Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead, which was the best underrated doc of the year, has been rented 770,000 times despite going direct to DVD.) I watched this with my 20-year-old godson, who is a regular (and one-time winner!) at the Wednesday night slam at the Cantab in Cambridge, Mass. He gives it a 9.2. The film captures remarkably well the sense of community that bonds slam poets together, and some of the poetry and performances are jaw-droppingly good.

I actually wonder whether this film would have been even better if at had been *longer*. It is very clearly modeled after Spellbound -- the "problem" is that the competition here is so worth watching that the film devotes much more time to it, and hence there is significantly less background about the four young poets that are being followed. It's clear that the filmmakers did not follow their home lives a la Hoop Dreams, and it's not hard to wonder whether they might have had a minor masterpiece if they had had the opportunity to do so. (I admit to brain cramping and not checking the DVD extras for deleted scenes before sending the disk back -- which I regret now!)

I can't call this a "must-see" for general audiences (hence the 7 grade -- I'm a very tough grader), but it certainly is for anyone who loves poetry, slam or otherwise.